Rudolph "9/11" Giuliani is banking on the good Republicans in Florida to save his sorry ass in the primary. Given the gang of bottom feeders running in that Party's primary, you wonder how anyone could be stupid enough to vote in it, but there is ample evidence that they exist a-plenty in Florida. I don't mean to pick on Florida. People with barely two neurons to rub together seem to be everywhere. They even have their own TV network, Fox. That way when MyFoxOrlando gestates a particularly redolent fecal load, they can relieve themselves through still other orifices -- MyFoxColorado, for example:
Pastor Renee Brewster and her husband Bishop Winston Brewster are a very spiritual couple. But the site of their savior in a potato has reinvigorated their faith and their desire to help others.[snip]
Renee says she had been looking for an excuse to get out of making potato salad. "I was hesitant about making the potato salad because Sister Frankie makes the potato salad at church and I said lord if it's not for me to make potato salad then send me a sign."
She thought she got her sign right off the bat. "The first potato I split in half and put it to the side because it looked rotten.
It was her 10-year-old granddaughter who made her give the potato a second look. "My granddaughter said Granny did you see that in the middle? I said what?"
And taking a closer look she saw the cross with Jesus in the middle. "It's remarkable." (MyFoxOrlando via MyFoxColorado)
I'll pause in this inspiring story so you can go to MyFoxColorado to see these remarkable likenesses of Jesus on the Cross in the rotten potato for yourselves, here and here. Please do. I'd put them up here but Fox copyrighted the pics. Apparently Jesus on the Cross is a Fox property.
So what happened next? Not even The Onion could make this up:
Pastor Brewster froze the heart of that potato bearing Jesus. The rest was used to make the potato salad served during their weekly rescue mission.How was that potato salad? "It was good. It was the best you ever made...it was almost as good as Sister Frankie's," said Bishop Brewster.
Sure. Put poor Jesus in the freezer, eat the Apostles, Mary Magdalen, Pontius Pilate, Barabas and assorted Roman Legionnaires with mayo and don't even give poor granny the potato salad Palme d'Or.
Last summer PZ had the temerity to suggest we're surrounded by "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies in the United States." This raised a ruckus with those who thought we atheists have to be nicer to the ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies that surround us, so I want to be clear it was PZ that said this, not me.
I just agree with it.
Politics
Comments
You don't persuade people by calling them "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies in the United States," you just insult them. Such rhetoric is a waste of time and, frankly, offensive. It would be a lot better if atheists who know enough of science and have an idea of what is going on (i.e. pareidolia), would try and explain what is happening. Most religious people would not listen, but some might be persuaded. You get nothing but a bad reputation by making PZ's types of statements, which atheism doesn't need.
Posted by: hardindr | January 27, 2008 9:01 AM
hardindr: You assume all atheists (meaning me, in this case) are out to persuade people. I'm not a proselytizer. I'm OK with people believing what suits them as long as they don't get in my way. I'm not for making it a requirement to own a rabbit's foot to bring the nation good luck, but if you think stroking a rabbit's foot will bring you good luck, stroke away. I'm still allowed to have opinions about it, just as you obviously have opinions about what I said. "Atheism" doesn't need anything, because we aren't a religion (silly comments to the contrary notwithstanding). We represent the absence of religion. Or as one wag put it, bald isn't a hair color.
Posted by: revere | January 27, 2008 9:23 AM
hardindr,
I've heard that argument a million times, and frankly it is just BS. The religious people you are referring to won't be convinced with any sort of atheist rhetoric. The style of revere, and PZ work with a set of people who have some doubts about religion, but are as of yet unwilling to call themselves non-theists.
I was in that exact position before I started reading revere, PZ, and Dawkins. I thought I needed faith of some sort, and the "militant" atheists made me realize that actually, I don't. Faith is actually a hinderance to leading a happy and productive life. So, quit be so certain that inflammatory language hurts "the cause".
Finally, I think we all need to recognize that we are all ignorant and/or deluded in some ways.
Posted by: Isaac | January 27, 2008 9:42 AM
hardindr: Isaac brings up an important point I should have mentioned. While I'm not trying to persuade anyone, by saying out loud what many people would really think about this Jesus in the Potato crap if they were really thinking about it, I am legitimating the appropriate ridicule of mindless (or worse) nonsense on TV. Instead most people don't think about it because it is just more noise in the background. So I'm calling attention to it and calling it what it is. I make no apologies , although I am happy to explain it. It's no different than quackery or fraudulent health claims that also separate people from their money and good sense. You don't complain that we shouldn't be so hard on the poor quacks, do you? There are a huge number of people who believe in that stuff, too. Why should this nonsense get a free pass?
Posted by: revere | January 27, 2008 10:05 AM
Should we be concerned that we offend people who religiously and devoutly see Jesus in a potato? Or should we point out the trend... we see these sacred sightings when they get somebody on the news. Half the news articles are about the discovery... the other half are about the subsequent auction on eBay.
You say "potato", and I say "Jesus"
You say "hey, wait--Oh, just look at the pieces!"
Right there in the bowl, he's so wonderfully holy
Let's call the guys at Fox!
You say "sandwich", and I say "Mary"
You think it's grand, which I think is just scary
But you need no urgin' to see you a virgin
Let's call the guys at Fox!
And Oh!--if we call the guys at Fox
We'll make the news.
And Oh!--If we're on the news,
There's no way we can lose
So if you say "tortilla", and I say "Jesus"
I promise I'll see a real face in the cheeses
How lucky would we be, to be on the TV
Let's call the guys at Fox--
Let's call the guys at Fox!
More at: http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/01/pareidolia.html
Posted by: Cuttlefish | January 27, 2008 10:58 AM
You're feel to believe whatever crazy crap you want to, just as we are free to mock, ridicule and scorn you for those insipid beliefs you hold, that's what freedom means folks.
Posted by: toddahhhh | January 27, 2008 12:39 PM
I'm in Isaac's court with this one. This website was very useful as I went through my deconversion. For 'some people', blunt honesty is helpful. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: rmp | January 27, 2008 12:40 PM
But which (Republican, of course) candidate does Potato Jesus endorse in the Florida primary?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 27, 2008 12:50 PM
Assuming it's an Idaho potato I'm guessing Ron Paul.
Posted by: Zensunni | January 27, 2008 1:10 PM
And wouldnt the shit hit the fan Revere if someone ate said potato salad having cancer or what have you and suddenly they were cured? They dont call the South the Bible Belt for nothing and even the term atheist is frowned upon here.Let them know it and they'll ram a Bible so far up your ass that you would pray for a waterboarding instead. But back to the salad... I would no more villify that than my own problem with gay Episcopal priests. But as I indicated, silly crap like this HAS resulted in absolutely amazing stuff happening before. In my opinion, too many things have happened that can be explained as natural phenoms that occurred just at the precise moment in time when it would appear as if God or a messenger of his needed too.
Is it God or PZ? I havent a clue because folks like you are scientists and you are always looking for the smoke and mirrors. Me too. Fastest way to destroy a faith is to destroy what they consider to be the truth. Is God a smoke and miror act? Shit, scientifically speaking....yeah. But thats where faith comes in... Ever heard someone say that they know they are saved? Why? Because you have felt a rumbling deep in yourself for reason unknown and gone to be dipped in the river? Now there's science for you. Did the potato salad have a little botulism in it? Its also presumptious of someone who says it to assume that God has put you on the college of the heavens acceptance list. If you want to do your baccalaureate degree work .... Liberty University and a few others have the right hand of our Lord on their shoulders.... Think not? Just ask them.
I also make another couple of assertions here. Making a Mr. Potato head face doesnt flip my skirt at all. Now that Red Sea thing... Yup that would do it. It would also be scientifically explainable. Wind, quake, methane explosion, tornado could all be used and ensure a really good story 2500 years later.... Charlton Heston and Cecil B. DeMille all rights reserved. High tech for its time! But if that face had turned and said go ye out and collect the animals two by two......Even my own Bishop and priest say be skeptical when you see these things.
No one has ever proven or disproven the existence of God. For scientists, its a -,0,+ equation. We start at zero, then because there is evidence that refutes the existence as all of the calculations, formulae, and scientific evidence make it provable in science it moves to the negative column. Without bumping into HIM and IT somewhere in there, we can scientifically prove so far that its a - and away from 0. Kind of like doing a paper on it. Yep, there aint no God scientifically speaking.
On the other hand, you have all of this Bible/Koran/Talmud and others that based upon the writings passed down for as long as we have recorded things on clay tablets, papyrus, paper and now computers that indicates SOMETHING has been going on. Does it bring it back to zero or into the + column? No, even as a believer I cant say that it does. But that is where faith comes in. If we are a randomized existence in this Universe then it creates the higher likelyhood that we are not alone. It would also mean never have been. Why? There are so many places that life would surely simply by the numbers exist. They might be our fathers and mothers. But, take some of the teachings of the aforementioned and its mighty presumptious scientifically to assume we are the only ones.
Thats where faith begins and science ends. Jesus said that he who believes in him shall not perish. Everything else that he did fell in behind that. Miracles or smoke and mirrors? Faith or science? Take your pick. I wont bash anyone up for not believing, advocating abortion or the right to it. Those are things that are both personal choices. It seems to be the mantra of those that would become the Simon the Zealot of our time. St. Simon was one of the first associated with proselytizing and apparently after the death of Jesus got himself killed for it.
I often wonder what Jesus would do.....The answers are still very cloudy. I doubt that a potato in a very certainly fundamentalist church would be his re-appearance. But thats presumptious of me. Is this a -,0,+? Make the salad upon your faith and eat it even with the rotten potato. Feed it to a person who has cancer....If they get better its God, if not its the state prosecutor. -,0,+........
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | January 27, 2008 1:24 PM
I think hardindr is also under the mistaken impression that it takes outspoken rhetoric to "offend" the deeply religious. As recent news articles have shown, the religious - as a group - are happy to take offense at the slightest perceived indiscretion.
I still find it incredible that the religious are allowed to call everyone and anyone that isn't of the same religious persuasion evil, immoral, hell-bound and even a "one of the greatest threats to humanity" (thank you Mr Archbishiop of Wales) with impunity, but call people with those beliefs ignorant or an idiot, and it's you who's upsetting the apple cart. I'll never understand that.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | January 27, 2008 1:32 PM
I've split millions of potatoes in my life and each and every time it reinvigorated my atheism: none of them showed any resemblance to any deity.
Posted by: Willem van Oranje | January 27, 2008 1:40 PM
I note the article Revere cites from actually say "site" rather than "sight". Fox's fault, not Revere's of course, he is just quoting verbatim.
Am I alone in thinking a lack of a rudimentary grasp of English indicates a slight lack of intelligence. In native English speakers of course. Non native speakers would not make such an idiotic mistake.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | January 27, 2008 1:50 PM
Trust me, no one with more than two functioning neurons, who encounters a moron who believes he or she has found Jesus in a half rotten potato is going to waste his or her breath convincing such an idiot of anything. The only thing to do is mock, mock and mock some more. I mean really!
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | January 27, 2008 1:58 PM
They cut Jesus in half! Those satanic potato peelers cut Jesus in half!
/feigned blasphemy mode off
Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 27, 2008 2:59 PM
Someone needs to do an experiment here. Just how easy is it to make a potato have a cross in it? Say make a couple of holes intersecting at right angles. Remove offending implement. Grow on potato. Harvest. Split. Instant celebrity?
Posted by: Jit | January 27, 2008 3:24 PM
was it hilarious that these alleged adults were told, by a child, that there was a jeebus in their tater? and they just went right along with it?
"ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies" is dead on.
Posted by: garth | January 27, 2008 3:46 PM
No need to go to all that trouble, Jit.
Even with zero artistic skills, you should still be able to paint something the pre-deluded will accept. Water colours or maybe acrylics should do it. No need to wait for months this way.
It's not like you have to get it past a scientific or even ecclesiastic investigator. If it is good enough for a faux tv reporter, you're in. Otherwise submit a photograph.
Hopefully no eagerly offended potatoes are reading this.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | January 27, 2008 3:57 PM
No comment, except to note this site:
http://getbehindjesus.net/
Posted by: Atheist Since Birth | January 27, 2008 4:03 PM
Oh my sweet jesus! A potato? I think I saw an image of Allah seared into my pork chop. What does that mean?
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia | January 27, 2008 4:19 PM
You have to admit, though, it does look a lot like Jesus. Not that I think it's anything more than a coincidence. I'm just sayin.
Posted by: C Decoy | January 27, 2008 4:38 PM
unfortunately, the only resemblance I see between the pics and a millennia-past deceased rabbi is that both exhibit significant signs of decay (just a hunch on the christ corpse). I think it's wonderful to not be alone on seeing such stories and wondering how the hell even a Fox editor thought it was newsworthy. Who cares about the views of folk that take such spuds seriously? Not I.
Posted by: Matthew Skinta | January 27, 2008 5:08 PM
What is the point to eliminating the obsolete mythologies only to substitute new ones in their place? Mythologies are by their nature not tools for dealing with reality, they're for denying and hiding from it.
Posted by: Caledonian | January 27, 2008 5:13 PM
But they cut the potato in half. Wouldn't one side be Jesus, and the other side be anti-Jesus, therefore annihilating the miracle?
I'm waiting for the paint in my kitchen to weep and form a picture of the Virgin too..,
Posted by: neil | January 27, 2008 5:19 PM
Jesus on a potato reminds me of this comic.
Posted by: Ambitwistor | January 27, 2008 5:28 PM
What an odd coincidence. I was just watching an episode of the BBC comedy drama "Jam and Jerusalem" which covered this very topic! Dawn French (of Vicar of Dibley fame) plays a "nutter" who finds a potato that looks like the face of Jesus.
Fortunately it's on YouTube. The set up, which is a beautifully written scene between Rosie (Dawn French) and the local vicar where they discuss the hearing voices and getting signs from God (i.e. why is being hearing from God not a sign of madness?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI9kAZ5PTm4 starting at 1:40
Later Rosie is digging in her allotment (a small vegetable garden), find the potato and brings it to the church:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUS8cAaDr-8 starting at 8:50 and continuing into part 3.
Posted by: tacitus | January 27, 2008 5:39 PM
I gotta say, that as "$DEITY in a $FOODSTUFF" imagery goes, that's actually a lot more detailed than you usually get in these sorts of stories. While it may take a lot of faith and imagination to believe how it got there, it takes practically none to see what everybody is making such a big deal out of.
Posted by: Dillo | January 27, 2008 6:05 PM
Its possible that it may be unproductive to openly label idiotic beliefs idiotic... I don't really care, it's not really my job to educate the willfully ignorant.
But it's certainly not offensive. It's offensive to openly state the facts - that believing in crazy mythology is nuts? No. What's offensive is to suggest that it's improper to point out the obvious. It's offensive to say that delusion should be treated with respect and deference and rational thought should be hidden.
Posted by: craig | January 27, 2008 6:07 PM
Damn your lengthy post, Kruger. Oh well.
Really? Like what? And how do you prove causation?
I would say too many things have not happened. Every time I read about an innocent child dying, I think of god. For every "miracle", there are a thousand non-miracles. Or more.
You also have to be aware of sharpening and leveling. When someone prays, if what they want to happen happens, they chalk it up as prayer working and remember it. (That's sharpening.) If what they want to happen doesn't happen, they say that god's answer to their prayer was "no" and forget about it. (That'd be leveling.)
You won't hear any of these loons talking about the hundreds or thousands of times they prayed for a miracle and got nothing, because they need to keep believing that someone is looking out for them.
Reason unknown until someone cares enough to study the mental effects of participating in religious ritual... (Anyone wanna chime in with some refs? All I've got is stuff about drug-induced "religious experiences.")
But why believe that story in the first place? If your culture wasn't biased towards judeo-christian mythology, you would probably discount it completely. Just because something was written down a long time ago doesn't make it true. What about Greek mythology? Or Chinese? Or Native American? (Not written down, but still passed down.)
I fear that you're about to suggest that there is a way of "knowing" about the universe other than rational inquiry.
Yes, something has been going on. People who lack the tools to come up with natural explanations for phenomena have been making up supernatural explanations. And then given the belief that there was a big beard in the sky watching out for them, they proceeded to make up all kinds of stories that served purely social purposes. There's really nothing more to it. I mean, we are talking about texts that say that the sun was made to "stand still" or that, after you die, a guy with a dog's head will weigh your heart on a big set of scales.
Faith comes in and does what, exactly? Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside? (I'm not meaning to mock you--I know that warm, fuzzy feeling very well.)
No, science only rejects the existence of supernatural beings and phenomena. Nobody's saying that our planet is the only one with sentient life. I certainly hope it's not, provided the other guys are willing to play nice.
Let us know how that's worked out for you in 50 or 100 years. ;-)
It's a good thing for people like the Reverend Huckabeee who reject science that we secularists are willing to share our technology and medicine with them.
Is it? Don't be afraid to reject stupid ideas. Is god's special effects budget running low? Has he really been reduced from things like parting the red sea (supposedly) to making some funny squiggles on the inside of a potato?
It's a negative indicator for the intelligence of the potato-worshippers.
That's exactly how it works. If something good happens, it's god. If not, blame it on something else. I know you're trying to be intellectually "fair" and give all ideas equal consideration, but not all ideas are equally worth consideration. Still, I wish you the best on your intellectual journey.
PS: You owe me a side of holy french fries for reading your whole post!
Posted by: Josh in California | January 27, 2008 6:14 PM
I realize this is entitled "Freethinker Sunday" and being new to this forum I am assuming that there just isn't any new exciting public health issues on the nearby horizon to get all worked up or paranoid over or perhaps the public health issue here is eating rotten potatoes may be hazardous to one's health? I also agree that the Republican candidates leave a lot to be desired, although not quite sure how that is a public health issue. For that matter I think the Democratic candidates are simply atrocious and if it wasn't for the hilarious comedy being played out by the "progressives" of now suddenly hating Senator Clinton, where just a few short months ago, they loved Senator Clinton, I can see where they could cause severe mental damage simply by listening to them, say, well they hardly say anything meaningful do they? I do believe, and I have the utmost sympathy for them, that certain "progressives" just might have breakdowns because if they don't vote for Obama they might be labeled racist or if they don't vote for Clinton they might be tagged as sexist. What is a card carrying "progressive" to do? They could vote for Edwards I guess. Oh well, you public health professionals probably have answers to all these dilemnas so perhaps I shouldn't worry so.
Posted by: pauls lane | January 27, 2008 6:22 PM
It looks a lot like jesus? Are you kidding me? If that looks a lot like jesus, then the letter t looks a lot like jesus.
Posted by: craig | January 27, 2008 6:26 PM
Honestly, how many millions of times do we have to explain pareidolia before we're allowed to just say, "You know what, people? I give up. You're all goddamned retarded."?
Posted by: Joshua | January 27, 2008 6:29 PM
"I know I shouldn't eat thee, but,"
*chomp*
"Mmmm, sacrilicious..."
Posted by: Tom Renbarger | January 27, 2008 6:34 PM
Armchair Dissident:
To put it bluntly, you are complaining at how the religious can supposedly get away with unfairly characterizing their opposition while you are not allowed to get away with the same intellectual dishonesty. Furthermore, you further show muddy thinking by talking about the religious as if they were a monolith.
No one here so far is knocking you for calling the Jesus in the Potato crap, but rather knocking you for following it up with another round of playing the game where you insinuate that theists are generally lunatics without outright saying it.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | January 27, 2008 6:42 PM
pauls: we do it every Sunday. Don't read it if you don't like it. Our blog, after all.
JJR: Fair enough.
Posted by: revere | January 27, 2008 6:59 PM
Here, JJR, I won't insinuate. I'll say right out that theists believe in something that by rights only someone who is generally a lunatic would believe if they weren't brought up to believe it.
Theists - they get 'em while they're young, you know. It all makes sense if that's what the grownups tell you.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | January 27, 2008 9:05 PM
Revere, and I can't mock you?
Posted by: pauls lane | January 27, 2008 10:10 PM
pauls: LOL. You were mocking me? I thought you were just griping it wasn't science. I didn't bother with the rest of what you said because your knock on progressives was so uninformed and frankly preposterous. If you knew anything about progressive politics you'd know that Hilary Clinton is anathema to us. I don't trust her and neither do most other progressives. She has always been right of center and her vote for the war before and the Iran atrocity recently were the real Hilary. On health care she's in bed with the health insurance industry and was in 1993. As for Obama, the change of rhetoric will be nice. Of course I'd vote for either rather than any of the Repugnantcans, but that isn't saying much. Seriously, though, if you want to mock me, it's incredibly easy to start a blog. I would recommend Blogger. It'll take you about 30 seconds to set one up and then you can mock away. I don't run a very tight ship here. Lots of people criticize me, but if you just drop around to complain don't come here. There are people of all political stripes here and free discussion is encouraged but there is mostly a lot of serious business to consider regarding pandemic influenza and other public health matters that don't care what your politics are. They'll kill you without asking. We do a Sermonette every Sunday and occasionally I rant about the war and the Bushies but mostly it's about public health. You're welcome here if you keep it within reasonable bounds. But it's not a democracy. It's our place and we run it the way we want to.
Posted by: revere | January 27, 2008 10:24 PM
Hey Josh! You want ketchup with those fries? You reaallllly need to see what I found in my damned tomato this morning....I got that cross and can someone please tell me what Jesus looked like? I dont want any impostors in my BLT sandwich. This guy sure looked like....shit... no....Oh crap....Its Mike Huckabee.....
BTW-Mike is a good guy. I would vote for him if all he would do is close the bleedin' border. I want a real sunovabitch as President rather than a wussy who lies and says we are strafing women and children, or one that says we need to repair our image. What image? Everyone I have spoke to for the last 25 years said they hated us. That includes the Swiss.
As for that tomato...Film at 11. Please, leave the donations by the doorway. Tax deductible of course.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | January 27, 2008 11:02 PM
To put it bluntly, you are complaining at how the religious can supposedly get away with unfairly characterizing their opposition while you are not allowed to get away with the same intellectual dishonesty.
Wrong, wrong wrong.
We are complaining that the religious get away with unfairly characterizing the non-religious, while we're not allowed to FAIRLY characterize religion.
To NOT characterize religious belief as totally batshit insane would be intellectual dishonesty.
The belief that contrary to every bit of evidence, the universe was created by some magical being solely for the benefit of some creatures inhabiting a remote tiny dust speck, and that magic being cares so much about the little animated collections of molecules on that infinitesimally insignificant, remote dust speck that it listens to the thoughts in their heads... and will torture for eternity those little clumps of matter if they put their parts in the wrong places? And amazingly enough, these little clumps of matter are so special, that they LOOK like this all powerful mystic space wizard?
Besides being narcissism taken to the ultimate degree, these beliefs are simply insane. Delusional. Wacky. Ridiculous.
That is fact. Theists are by definition delusional. Now, everyone is delusional to some degree about some things ("he'll stop beating me..." "I have a chance of winning this lottery...") but pretending that religious belief is anything but flat out crazy is what is intellectual dishonesty. Unless you share that same delusion.
Posted by: craig | January 27, 2008 11:09 PM
What I want to know is how these people know what Jesus looked like. As far as I know he was never described in the Bible, or had his portrait painted or a bust made or anything while he was alledgedly walking the earth. The same goes for 'tards who get all googly-eyed over the scorch marks on a burned taco "the Virgin Mary", etc., etc. It's nothing but the same kind of pattern-recognition that everyone experiences when cloud-watching or stargazing. Only these freaks think that a face on a taco or potato or the dimples on their asses mean anything.
And they wonder why atheists laugh at them. I guess it's true - you can't fix stupid.
Posted by: stig | January 27, 2008 11:09 PM
One other thing... Revere is right about the health insurance thing. The Clintons were at their old game, first create a crisis, appear to solve it and then when it blows up you blame the Republicans. The were in the insurance gig up to their necks. Why do you think Hillary failed in her attempt at UHC? Because she stabbed them in the back and they turned on her when they found out what her game really was. Billy's problems escalated rapidly after that too.
No, if it got down to Obombme and Hillary it would be Obombme as far as I am concerned. But that is if I would vote for Demosocialists. Worst thing in my eyes is for Hillary to be the Vice President, Obombme would be dead within months but even he couldnt be that stupid.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | January 27, 2008 11:14 PM
But where's the potato with the guts to stand up and say Idaho? Sorry, that was unforgiveable. I'm just having a "Religion: It Makes You Insane" kinda day.
Posted by: thepoliticalcat | January 27, 2008 11:29 PM
I'm surprised Revere...at the viscousness of the original post. A disappointment after reading your blog for over two years now. I guess I have a choice, that's a democracy, unlike the liberal or progressive view...that there is no choice, to agree or leave.
You do own the blog...but in being good at it, you assume a certain responsibility. When you are granted stewardship...use it wisely Revere, and pick your fights carefully
Posted by: 70 | January 27, 2008 11:54 PM
70: Viciousness? Calling people who have patently foolish beliefs and see things in potatoes idiots is vicious? I call it tellin' it like it is. As far as I'm concerned revere was too nice. You're all allowed to have your stupid beliefs, but don't expect to not be called names.
Posted by: garth | January 28, 2008 3:05 AM
I'm sorry Garth...that you missed the point. My beliefs haven't entered in to this discussion, so it's irrelevant to call them stupid.
Garth...these types of rants seem to be rife with blatant discriminatory remarks, to hear them coming from one such as Revere is disturbing, just as it is from the other side of the aisle.
Have a good day.
Posted by: 70 | January 28, 2008 5:23 AM
JJR:
To put it bluntly, I didn't complain about anything. I merely pointed out the rhetoric of people we're supposed to be nice about. The Archibishop of Wales can call my philosophy the greatest threat to mankind, and I can call him a demented idiot. It's fair game. He's not trying to convince me of anything, I'm not trying to convince him. He's going to find as much offence in my calling him demented as he will in my calling his religion superstitious nonsense.
But to the extent that they are religious, they are a monolith. If you start talking about specific parts of a religion, then they cease to be monolithic; but to the extent that they hold a superstitious religious belief, they are monolithic.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | January 28, 2008 7:13 AM
revere - I was mocking your dishonesty. When I first came upon your site I thought it really was about health issues. My mistake.
Posted by: pauls lane | January 28, 2008 8:51 AM
Their religion seems a little starchy, but as long as they're not completely fried, I think we should all chip in....
Posted by: Ian | January 28, 2008 9:01 AM
"Their religion seems a little starchy, but as long as they're not completely fried, I think we should all chip in...."
Now I have to clean the spit off my monitor...that was genuinely hilarious.
Posted by: 70 | January 28, 2008 9:16 AM
I wonder if anyone got sick eating that potato fungus?
In the frozen potato, the piece on the right looks like an anchor and the piece on the left looks like the mild face of a cow. Who's that goddess who's portrayed as a cow with milk squirting from her teats? That's the one who sent the sign. The anchor commands her to take a long sea voyage.....
Posted by: Monado, currently in Florida | January 28, 2008 9:47 AM
pauls: It is about health issues. Why mock me for your mistake?
Posted by: revere | January 28, 2008 10:06 AM
Pauls lane
Are you sure that religion and spiritual matters are not in public health area?
So your definition of health is only physical, is it?
Posted by: paiwan | January 28, 2008 10:16 AM
Mike Haubrich, FCD: "Here, JJR, I won't insinuate. I'll say right out that theists believe in something that by rights only someone who is generally a lunatic would believe if they weren't brought up to believe it. [emphasis added]"
Notice that you had to add the disclaimer "if they weren't brought up to believe it," otherwise your statement would be obvious balderdash Even then, you haven't justified why mental illness is required for an adult to believe the sorts of things that theists believe rather than lack of education, lack of training in critical thought, the normal human glitches that lead to pareidolia, etc.
Armchair Dissident: "But to the extent that they are religious, they are a monolith."
Not true. Not all the religious have even remotely similar agendas. You wrote, "the religious are allowed to call everyone and anyone that isn't of the same religious persuasion evil, immoral, hell-bound," as if, for example, modern-day Methodists were inclined to see the Presbyterians as "evil, immoral, hell-bound," or that Buddhists thought the same of Christians, or that Reform Jews thought the same of Orthodox Jews. Obviously, there are plenty of religious people who do see those who are not of their faith as "evil, immoral, hell-bound," but the religious are not monolithic in that respect.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | January 28, 2008 10:17 AM
J.J Ramsey,
If someone was to claim they had be visited by aliens from another planet most people would consider it likely that the person was not functioning correctly from a psychological view point. Whilst the precise diagnosis maybe hard to make it is reasonable to conclude that such a person has aberrant mental processes going on.
If the same person had said they had been visited by god there would be some who say that was a wonderful thing and be envious of that person.
Quite why some people should think there is a difference in two escapes me.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | January 28, 2008 10:25 AM
Matt Penfold: "If someone was to claim they had be visited by aliens from another planet most people would consider it likely that the person was not functioning correctly from a psychological view point."
"Most people," yes. Whether a psychologist or a seasoned UFO skeptic would is another story. Such a person would more likely than not be wrong, but that wrongness could be explained by more mundane factors, as the Skeptic's Dictionary noted:
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | January 28, 2008 10:49 AM
I believe that there are more pressing public health issues for "senior public health scientists" to discuss than to somehow make the connection between a candidate for president, the percieved lack of intelligence of the people who live in a certain state, a television network, and people, perhaps good people, although certainly misguided people I grant you, who see the face of the Lord in a potato. This blog of "senior public health scientists" is no better than Kos or the Huffington Post. I guess I just expected more from "senior public health scientists" on a blog advertised as a "forum for progressive public health discussion" when in reality it is nothing more than the usual crap found around the Internet.
Posted by: pauls lane | January 28, 2008 10:54 AM
pauls
Pressing and importance are two criteria; at least you have recognized this is included in health category.
Now you criticize that we are drinking root bear or our drinks are not good enough in this party; then bring your XO to share. But I bet that not everyone is fond of XO.
Taste and style belong to art; senior public health scientists indeed need this part.
Bring your XO, and then I will instruct you!
Posted by: paiwan | January 28, 2008 11:13 AM
Paiwan
You can mold it anyway you like but crap is crap.
Posted by: pauls lane | January 28, 2008 11:26 AM
pauls
You make me laugh, but not yet fall down from my chair.
Let me ask you two questions, sincere:
1. If you detect that people around you, either family member or colleagues close enough; and you have found that they have some mental disturbances; transference, depression, or slight schizophrenia, what will you do?
2. If you feel that our society has the tendency of collective insanity, what will you do?
By the way, your XO not bad. I am not the host, but I can whisper..
Posted by: paiwan | January 28, 2008 11:54 AM
looks like a cylon to me.
Posted by: FRANKIEMOUSE | January 28, 2008 11:56 AM
LOL.
Finally. The potato-jesus-christians and the Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-worshippers find common ground.
Its all about food.
LOL
Posted by: highflyer | January 28, 2008 11:59 AM
JJR:
Not true.
Quoi? To the extent that they are religious, they are not all religious? By definition a religious person is religious!
Ah, I see you didn't read the second part, "If you start talking about specific parts of a religion, then they cease to be monolithic;" So, we agree that not all religious people think and act the same way, but they are all religious, and - frankly - the religious notion in and of itself is reasonable justification for ridicule.
Outside of that religious sentiment, religious people can be just as kind, gentle, heartless, or evil as the people with religious sentiment. Outside of religion, they can be deluded or rational. But nevertheless, irrespective as to how rational or reasonable they are outside of religion, they are still religious; there is still this one single aspect of their lives that makes them believe silly things, and to me as an outside observer those ideas are very silly indeed.
But sticking with the subject of religiousity and reasonableness, I'd like to make a point: not all catholics (just to pick one denomination) agree that the pope is a terribly nice person, or agree with much of what he says. But - and it's a big "but" as far as I'm concerned - every single catholic is counted as a person whose views are represented by the pope. Every single catholic who pays money to their local church is supporting a fundamentally bigoted and dangerous organisation irrespective as to whether they support its ideology. The entire political and financial power of that religious institutions could be supported by a majority of people who fundamentally disagree with that organisations principles but they pay for it anyway. And that' not just true of the catholic church.
So no, all religions are not equally laughable. Not all religious people govern their entire lives by ridiculous beliefs. But even those that are more moderate, and more sensible fund organizations that aren't.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | January 28, 2008 1:59 PM
"Assuming it's an Idaho potato I'm guessing Ron Paul."
Clearly you don't know much about Idaho. That's pure Mitt Romney country.
Posted by: xiangtao |